NZDF General discussion thread

[kiwipatriot]

You don't need to go into what our city went through. But just to clear that; the rebuild will have a massive positive impact upon the national GDP for the next 20 years so that means a higher GDP and theoretically more money available for defence. The ANZACS were an Australian NZ build. The reason NZ welched on its agreement to purchase four was strictly political and the stinginess of the Jim Bolger National Govt & subsequent Shipley Govt, and Winston Peters. I was in the RNZNVR when the first set of drawings were made available to serving RNZN personnel and one thing we noted was a lot of Australia only items on the drawings. We were not impressed to say the least.

So don't go pinging our Aussie mates for what is purely a Kiwi balls up. You've had one moderator warning so I'd pull you horns and head in a bit. Read back through the thread and the NZDF one as well as the RAN one so that you might gain an understanding of things, before opening your mouth again.

Actually mate, wasn't slagging aussies at all, most of my immediate family live there! I vist Australia as often as possible, was a good respite from some of our larger shakes for me, having family in Melbourne,Perth. Ive read commentarys from Aussies themselves that were much harsher than i am, in regards to our responsibilities as a pacific partner. Which is strange really, considering we had a lot of purchases with them and builds with tenix and the protector fleet, and the seasprites, military exersizes, to name just a few things we do together. As for our increased levels in gdp Is National prepared to put their money where their mouth is, come budget time, are they any better to deal with than Labour,we will see.

 

[kiwipatriot]

No harm, no foul. Sometimes tone and intent is hard to pick up on the internet.

Logically and wherever possible everyone in the "5 eyes" community goes for commonality at various sharing levels. The reality for Australia is that our principle long term partner since the end of WW2 has been the US, so we have a compelling need and desire to ensure that we can interoperate as much as poss with the US

UK and Canada have similar philosophies and needs due to NATO as well as "5 Eyes"

NZ's choice and future force planning takes in similar considerations and constraints although her priorities are also based around interop with Aust. (and ditto for Oz as NZ is our immediate regional partner)

everyone is constrained by budget limitations

its easy though to be seduced by the philosophy that a common platform will drive down costs as each of us has integration requirements which buggers up the good intent

And I would have liked to see NZ Army do the upgrade of the m113 too with the Austrailans, to the M113 AS4, instead of the Lav 3 Canadian IFV ,would have saved us a lot there too, extra money freed up from not paying $600 million or so would of meant NZDF would not have to civilianise part of their forces, increase housing rates to defence personell, sell off gear,and skimp on the frigate builds. Keeping in line with the commonality idea, not slagging Nz army either. Quantity and a proven product, must be for the aussies to upgrade em, thinking outside of the box. Pity we cant come up some similar idea for some of Nz other equipment, build up an industry to upgrade, or at least service our planes, armour, ect? would create some jobs which would make the 'pollies' happy.

 

[ngatimozart]

And I would have liked to see NZ Army do the upgrade of the m113 too with the Austrailans, to the M113 AS4, instead of the Lav 3 Canadian IFV ,would have saved us a lot there too, extra money freed up from not paying $600 million or so would of meant NZDF would not have to civilianise part of their forces, increase housing rates to defence personell, sell off gear,and skimp on the frigate builds. Keeping in line with the commonality idea, not slagging Nz army either. Quantity and a proven product, must be for the aussies to upgrade em, thinking outside of the box. Pity we cant come up some similar idea for some of Nz other equipment, build up an industry to upgrade, or at least service our planes, armour, ect? would create some jobs which would make the 'pollies' happy.

From what I understand the Kiwi M113s were munted. Also IIRC the LAV III is highly regarded so why stick with upgrading munted kit and wasting money when we got new kit that is good. Not all of the LAV III capabilities are in the public domain. The Army were after the LAV III and they did all they had to educating pollies, bureaucrats and the public to make sure they got them. The selling of married quarters occurred under National govts. Since 1990 neither major political party has been a friend of NZDF until now we get a minister who is willing to listen and even sometimes act. I think a lot will be revealed when the new NZDF funding model and process is unveiled in the next budget. One other thing about 1998, Winston Peters was dead against a third frigate purchase. Finally in 1998 all of NZs historical political mismanagement of defence procurement birds came home to roost and we had multiple major platform obsolescence occur at once. We are facing that again in the near future.

 

[gf0012-aust]

And I would have liked to see NZ Army do the upgrade of the m113 too with the Austrailans, to the M113 AS4, instead of the Lav 3 Canadian IFV ,would have saved us a lot there too, extra money freed up from not paying $600 million or so would of meant NZDF would not have to civilianise part of their forces, increase housing rates to defence personell, sell off gear,and skimp on the frigate builds. Keeping in line with the commonality idea, not slagging Nz army either. Quantity and a proven product, must be for the aussies to upgrade em, thinking outside of the box. Pity we cant come up some similar idea for some of Nz other equipment, build up an industry to upgrade, or at least service our planes, armour, ect? would create some jobs which would make the 'pollies' happy.

there would be no shortage of people within defence who would proffer the advice that the money spent on the M113's was an absolute woftam - a classic example of industry rooting someone's ego and lack of nouse in the ministers office

an unmitigated disaster demonstrating how bad ideas, ignoring advice, seduction by industry leads to the perfect storm and then screws capability where the money was better served and needed but hijacked by stupidity

 

[ngatimozart]

Actually mate, wasn't slagging aussies at all, most of my immediate family live there! I vist Australia as often as possible, was a good respite from some of our larger shakes for me, having family in Melbourne,Perth. Ive read commentarys from Aussies themselves that were much harsher than i am, in regards to our responsibilities as a pacific partner. Which is strange really, considering we had a lot of purchases with them and builds with tenix and the protector fleet, and the seasprites, military exersizes, to name just a few things we do together. As for our increased levels in gdp Is National prepared to put their money where their mouth is, come budget time, are they any better to deal with than Labour,we will see.

I was not going to comment until I had given this some thought,and now I have. It came across as sledging and I am very intolerant of uninformed ill-considered derogatory comments about our Aussie brothers and sisters. The Australians who post on here, especially the professionals, are very aware of what the NZDF situation is vis a vis Kiwi politicians and the Kiwi public in general. What us Kiwi posters, in particular, and the forum in general don't need, is sledging either directly or indirectly of the Aussies by an uniformed kiwi. I am ex military and hold very strongly to the military ethos of brother and sisterhood, especially the ANZAC tradition and ties. There are others here who are the same.

Be advised think very carefully about what you post before you post because if you don't your time on here will be short indeed. We understand that you need to learn but many have tried to guide you and you don't appeared to have taken advantage of those opportunities.

 

[t68]

And I would have liked to see NZ Army do the upgrade of the m113 too with the Austrailans, to the M113 AS4, instead of the Lav 3 Canadian IFV ,would have saved us a lot there too, extra money freed up from not paying $600 million or so would of meant NZDF would not have to civilianise part of their forces, increase housing rates to defence personell, sell off gear,and skimp on the frigate builds. Keeping in line with the commonality idea, not slagging Nz army either. Quantity and a proven product, must be for the aussies to upgrade em, thinking outside of the box. Pity we cant come up some similar idea for some of Nz other equipment, build up an industry to upgrade, or at least service our planes, armour, ect? would create some jobs which would make the 'pollies' happy.

Really most people here believe we should have gone with new kit and that was the original intension when government approved a minor upgrade to the entire of 700 odd hulls back in 1992 at a cost 0f 50 million to provide an interim capability till a replacement AFV could be produced. However, changes to the type of upgrade happened and around 2001 government had approved instead a project to undertake a major upgrade of 350 M113s at a cost of $594 this number was then revised up when 5/7 RAR (2006) was delinked and an additional 81 hulls was needed so that they would each have the required kit without resorting to pool vehicles, the additional numbers brought up the bill to $884 million. But unfortunately not all the costs to the project are under the Major Upgrade Contract, the original order for preparing the hulls came out of the Army sustainment fund which is another contract unfortunately I don’t have the numbers for those so far we are up to about $940 million plus add the money from the sustainment fund and just to get the upgraded vehicles without spares etc. I reckon it would come out pretty dam close to a Billion dollars AUD

When you look at the project from where the vehicle original as was the upgraded M113 does represent an improvement on the older vehicle, it was a vehicle that was considered fit‐for purpose when the minor upgrade was first proposed 20 years ago now lags behind AFV in use with other armed forces, and is vulnerable in many current threat environments, leaving Defence with an acknowledged capability gap in medium to high intensity conflicts but will do the job in low threat environments

In a New Zealand context I believe you made the right choice considering the size of the NZDF; I believe there is still room for tracks in the NZ Army if it was larger with a mix of LAV III along with CV-90 (plus CV90105) and Bushmaster IMV

 

[Waylander]

1. billio AUS$ was way to much for what in the end remains just a beefed up M113.

The NZLAVs bring much more to the table with the exception being very heavy terrain. Looking at the possible missions the NZ army faces a modern wheeled IFV was the better choice by far.

Operational costs are lower, they are better suited for oversea peackeeping duties, they are better at covering a sparsely populated country like NZ and due to their superior optics and firepower are also better at supporting their infantry or fighting a mobile mounted engagement.

Without the LAVs the biggest gun carried by a NZ vehicle would be the M2. Go figure what that means for the punch of the army...

 

[kiwipatriot]

I was not going to comment until I had given this some thought,and now I have. It came across as sledging and I am very intolerant of uninformed ill-considered derogatory comments about our Aussie brothers and sisters. The Australians who post on here, especially the professionals, are very aware of what the NZDF situation is vis a vis Kiwi politicians and the Kiwi public in general. What us Kiwi posters, in particular, and the forum in general don't need, is sledging either directly or indirectly of the Aussies by an uniformed kiwi. I am ex military and hold very strongly to the military ethos of brother and sisterhood, especially the ANZAC tradition and ties. There are others here who are the same.

Be advised think very carefully about what you post before you post because if you don't your time on here will be short indeed. We understand that you need to learn but many have tried to guide you and you don't appeared to have taken advantage of those opportunities.

Regards to military ethos and the Anzac tradition, well I hold the utmost respect for our Anzac partnership, my brother served on the original Leander Frigate Canterbury as a engineer in the mid to late seventys, my dad was a rifleman in the RNZIR in the sixtys and I've know a few veterans personally from volunteering at the Rannerdale war Veterans home here. And if you examine my comments, you could hardly see beligerance , yes im uninformed on specific details, but I do glean my info from sites just like this,current events in the media, and sometimes recently ex servicemen. Happy to be kept informed by you and others here. :smilie

 

[kiwipatriot]

1. billio AUS$ was way to much for what in the end remains just a beefed up M113.

The NZLAVs bring much more to the table with the exception being very heavy terrain. Looking at the possible missions the NZ army faces a modern wheeled IFV was the better choice by far.

Operational costs are lower, they are better suited for oversea peackeeping duties, they are better at covering a sparsely populated country like NZ and due to their superior optics and firepower are also better at supporting their infantry or fighting a mobile mounted engagement.

Without the LAVs the biggest gun carried by a NZ vehicle would be the M2. Go figure what that means for the punch of the army...

Ive heard a lot of comments on this on other sites, looked it up, its it true Nz army is now selling off 35 of them? say it isn't so,why on earth buy so many to sell them off, are they having trouble crewing them? Yep 25 mm autocannon and optics, weapons fire control nbc ect a big step up, though there is the tracks vs wheels argument regards to mobility, and it has no amphibious capability, and its weight at 19/21 ton exceeds the never exceed lift of a C130. I worry also with whats left is it enough to deploy and keep a training force in place

 

[kiwipatriot]

Really most people here believe we should have gone with new kit and that was the original intension when government approved a minor upgrade to the entire of 700 odd hulls back in 1992 at a cost 0f 50 million to provide an interim capability till a replacement AFV could be produced. However, changes to the type of upgrade happened and around 2001 government had approved instead a project to undertake a major upgrade of 350 M113s at a cost of $594 this number was then revised up when 5/7 RAR (2006) was delinked and an additional 81 hulls was needed so that they would each have the required kit without resorting to pool vehicles, the additional numbers brought up the bill to $884 million. But unfortunately not all the costs to the project are under the Major Upgrade Contract, the original order for preparing the hulls came out of the Army sustainment fund which is another contract unfortunately I don’t have the numbers for those so far we are up to about $940 million plus add the money from the sustainment fund and just to get the upgraded vehicles without spares etc. I reckon it would come out pretty dam close to a Billion dollars AUD

When you look at the project from where the vehicle original as was the upgraded M113 does represent an improvement on the older vehicle, it was a vehicle that was considered fit‐for purpose when the minor upgrade was first proposed 20 years ago now lags behind AFV in use with other armed forces, and is vulnerable in many current threat environments, leaving Defence with an acknowledged capability gap in medium to high intensity conflicts but will do the job in low threat environments

In a New Zealand context I believe you made the right choice considering the size of the NZDF; I believe there is still room for tracks in the NZ Army if it was larger with a mix of LAV III along with CV-90 (plus CV90105) and Bushmaster IMV

perhaps Nz army can sell you some of ours, if the rumours are true, and were selling 35 or so. Not much I know compared to Aussie requirements, but a start. Im sure GDLS will let us sell them too you.

 

[MrConservative]

Amphibious capability within the context of opposed landings is not a requirement within the NZDF. Nor will it be. We have only ever participated in 3 opposed landings as part of the spearhead back in 1943 / 44. There we hitched a ride with the USMC/USN. If we were ever to participate in an opposed amphibious landing (lets be honest here that is very remote) it would be as part of a coalition force in which we would again hitch a ride with larger forces. Thus we got the LAV as it was the most suitable at the time. The people who you have read about whinging about it have never stopped to ask QAMR what they think.

 

[Waylander]

Did the M113AS4 even kept the amphibious capapabilty* of the orignal M113?

*As in being able to cross a small and slow river with a freeboard that could lead to several brown pants moments...

 

[ngatimozart]

perhaps Nz army can sell you some of ours, if the rumours are true, and were selling 35 or so. Not much I know compared to Aussie requirements, but a start. Im sure GDLS will let us sell them too you.

You better start supplying reputable sources for this claim. Refer to the forum rules with which you should have acquainted yourself by now. Unless there has been a major change in current NZG policy the number is not 35, but closer to 20. You have been advised to read through the NZ threads, well do so and you'll learn something.

 

[ngatimozart]

Regards to military ethos and the Anzac tradition, well I hold the utmost respect for our Anzac partnership, my brother served on the original Leander Frigate Canterbury as a engineer in the mid to late seventys, my dad was a rifleman in the RNZIR in the sixtys and I've know a few veterans personally from volunteering at the Rannerdale war Veterans home here. And if you examine my comments, you could hardly see beligerance , yes im uninformed on specific details, but I do glean my info from sites just like this,current events in the media, and sometimes recently ex servicemen. Happy to be kept informed by you and others here. :smilie

Well learn some humility and understand that this is a serious forum run by defence professionals who don't accept Wikipedia as a reputable source and generally regard the media with contempt because they are too lazy to properly research articles, so don't know what they are talking about.

 

[Bonza]

Regards to military ethos and the Anzac tradition, well I hold the utmost respect for our Anzac partnership, my brother served on the original Leander Frigate Canterbury as a engineer in the mid to late seventys, my dad was a rifleman in the RNZIR in the sixtys and I've know a few veterans personally from volunteering at the Rannerdale war Veterans home here. And if you examine my comments, you could hardly see beligerance , yes im uninformed on specific details, but I do glean my info from sites just like this,current events in the media, and sometimes recently ex servicemen. Happy to be kept informed by you and others here. :smilie

People see belligerence when you tell defence professionals to "do their research" while serving up your own opinions as though they're facts, and then adding to this by apportioning blame for the state of New Zealand's surface fleet to Australia by claiming that if Australia had selected a better vessel, New Zealand wouldn't have the problems it does. Guess what, it wasn't Australia that told you to pass on frigate numbers three and four, it wasn't Australia that decided you didn't need ESSM, nor was it Australia that decided you didn't need Harpoon. The ANZAC class may leave something to be desired capability-wise, but don't blame others for the inability of your own government to develop an appropriate surface capability.

I'm not trying to get in your face but you need to consider the quality of what you've been posting and the way you approach the contribution of others. Please think about this before responding as continued claims of innocence just cannot be taken seriously.

 

[gf0012-aust]

perhaps Nz army can sell you some of ours, if the rumours are true, and were selling 35 or so. Not much I know compared to Aussie requirements, but a start. Im sure GDLS will let us sell them too you.

You do realise that the NZLAVs and AUSLAVs are chalk and cheese in the spare parts bin?

why would any country want to inherit extra maint on 20 new orphans (not 35)

GDLS will sell whatever you're prepared to put coin down for - that's hardly a good philosophy for establishing considered force development and management....

I'm not sure you've worked it out yet - but some of the blue tags who are responding to you know more about AFV/IFV and anything with a black hat driving requirement than the average member has had hot meals...

my suggestion would be to read, listen to others in here and learn more - and stay away from being informed by wiki and broadsheets.

you're not doing your case much good when you consistently get basic concepts and platform details incorrect and then seek to educate others - esp those who have been or are on the job....

 

[t68]

Did the M113AS4 even kept the amphibious capapabilty* of the orignal M113?

*As in being able to cross a small and slow river with a freeboard that could lead to several brown pants moments...

Ahh no we lost that ability during the upgrade because of weight, M113AS4 vehicles on administration moves are restricted to the P2 plant trailer behind the Mack 6x6(truck & dog)or on semi trailer ( prime mover& 42ft long trailers) M113AS3(mortar carrier) I am lead to believe can still be move by the Mack 6x6.

I have only transported the pre upgraded carrier fleet but that's my understanding from talking to past members.

 

[Waylander]

Ah, thanks for that. I have guessed so. The original capability is already so limited that AFAIK any halfway serious upgrade done to the M113 results in loosing it.

The russians seem to be the only ones which are still going for river crossing abilities on their newer platforms. Western manufacturers have gotten away from it in their designs due to weight and design restrictions since some time.

Which is not all that bad when one has a robust bridgelaying capability. Which is a problem in many countries though...

 

[Volkodav]

The sad truth is Australian defence procurement, with the exception of a very small number of usually FMS based projects was a complete mess from the late 90s. It was almost completely lacking in strategic or holistic analysis or thinking, was highly reactionary and unbelievably politicised. Little, if any thought was given to actual long term objectives let alone capability development and what lip service was given to industry capability had more to do with the Govt. fluffing up assets with new contracts prior to sale rather than delivering required capability to the ADF.

Project after project, that had been intended as minor upgrades or life extensions to get existing capabilities through to a specific point where a permanent solution would be available grew to become the grossly over budget, behind schedule underperforming, permanent solution. Real solutions were cancelled without replacement or with substandard replacements, capabilities lost and so much money wasted it beggars belief. Always trying to be clever and pretending that just because it cost a lot and has a new paint job that something is good was the name of the game. PBs instead of corvettes, upgraded FFGs instead of new DDGs, upgraded ANZACs instead of new FFGs, Seasprites even though the corvettes they were intended to operate from had been cancelled. The M-113 upgrade is one of the worst, it took a still useful vehicle out of service and spent over a decade turning it into a marginally improved vehicle that in comparison to what is available today is even more outdated than it was before the upgrade. They project delivered so little so late that we would have been better off retiring them without replacement.

In comparison, NZ has, on a much smaller budget, achieved much better value for money over the same period. NZs biggest issue has been a lack of money, Australia's may well have been too much money combined with a complete lack of vision.

 

[gf0012-aust]

In comparison, NZ has, on a much smaller budget, achieved much better value for money over the same period. NZs biggest issue has been a lack of money, Australia's may well have been too much money combined with a complete lack of vision.

They've made Oz look silly in a number of areas...